Thread: Why don't people/Judges use the 10-10 round very often?

I know people give Teddy Atlas shit for scoring lots of rounds even (I can't say, I havn't watched any fights where he is guest judging) but I scored a couple rounds even in the Pac JMM fight just because it was so hard to differentiate and it was back and forth action.
Lots of people were arguing here about the first round and everyone admitted it was hard to score so why not a 10-10 round? Is it because judges are encouraged to find a clear cut winner of a round to help with scoring a fight?

Originally Posted by Althugz

I know people give Teddy Atlas shit for scoring lots of rounds even (I can't say, I havn't watched any fights where he is guest judging) but I scored a couple rounds even in the Pac JMM fight just because it was so hard to differentiate and it was back and forth action.
Lots of people were arguing here about the first round and everyone admitted it was hard to score so why not a 10-10 round? Is it because judges are encouraged to find a clear cut winner of a round to help with scoring a fight?

I guess what most judges are looking for is the QUALITY in the fight, not QUANTITY.

e.g.

JMM won the overall HBO compubox percentage. But Manny won the RBR scoring because he was the aggresive and actually the one whose been doing more damages against Marquez.

I believe it's always been the understanding in Britain that American judges, especially Vegas judges, try to always find the winner of a round.. so it was more common to see 10/10 rounds in Britian.. over the years ive found this to be bollocks.. without having stats to prove it.

Hope this pointless nonsense is helpful.

Well we do use a ten point must system which basically means someone has to win the round.Even if both fighter's get knocked down in a round.They (the judges) still have to determine who was more dominant in the round.I do agree 100% though.Going to last weekend's fight of Pac-Marquez.The first round was about as even a round as I've seen in recent years.

A good judge can distinguish the winner of a round, no matter how close.

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

A good judge can distinguish the winner of a round, no matter how close.

haha I love your sarcasm

Actually the real answer is that most of the judges are actually chickens taught to play tic tac toe.

They peck either the left box or right box after every round and their handler marks it accordingly.

Only a few chickens are able to understand to peck in both boxes for an even round hence we don't see it happen very often.

At least that's what I believe to be the case.

Originally Posted by Bilbo

Originally Posted by BoomBoom

A good judge can distinguish the winner of a round, no matter how close.

haha I love your sarcasm

Actually the real answer is that most of the judges are actually chickens taught to play tic tac toe.

They peck either the left box or right box after every round and their handler marks it accordingly.

Only a few chickens are able to understand to peck in both boxes for an even round hence we don't see it happen very often.

At least that's what I believe to be the case.

I agree. I have the same problem and or because I am a bit baised when watching a fight if the round is close, I will give it to the guy I like. I too would have to say that for some strange reason I am afraid to give a 10/10 because I am chicken pecking person as you have so perfectly described. We need to be re-taught in this area. No one should be afraid or emberrassed to score a very close round even Steven.

I mean I might as well flip a coin which would be just as wrong. know what I mean.

I think it wouldn't be a bad thing for judges to score a 10-10 round/s if it is nearly impossible to pick who won the 'round.. I've seen 'round that no matter what way you look at it, they were even... You'd simply be flipping a coin, or picking some completely random and irrelevant reason why one fighter has won an even 'round... If it's possible for a fighter to only JUST win the round in the eyes of the judges, then it is also possible for a round to be completley even by the judges.. But they pick a winner anyway.. This is where you get split decisions on a close fight with one judge scoring 117 for one fighter, and another judge scoring 117 for the other fighter... That tells you the fight was all about perception, and what tiny "convincing" thing each judge found to give the round to their fighter...
If 7 rounds were even, fight wise, give them 10-10 each for those 7 rounds, then let the scoring in the remainder rounds sort out who won... Instead of having half a fight that has been completely even, scored compeletely randomly and playing a large part in deciding a fight that has been even for most of it...

I have a feeling though, which may be completely wrong,,, that if a fight had 2 very every even rounds in a row, a judge would give a point to one fighter in the first round, then a point to the other in the second round.. Hence scoring them even, if their fighting appeared to be even yet they still had to pick a winner for each round...


It can go either way... And we would still have super shit judges who are watching an entirely different fight to the one happening right in front of them.

Originally Posted by Althugz

I know people give Teddy Atlas shit for scoring lots of rounds even (I can't say, I havn't watched any fights where he is guest judging) but I scored a couple rounds even in the Pac JMM fight just because it was so hard to differentiate and it was back and forth action.
Lots of people were arguing here about the first round and everyone admitted it was hard to score so why not a 10-10 round? Is it because judges are encouraged to find a clear cut winner of a round to help with scoring a fight?

I've always thought that judges are encouraged to never score a round even because this way of scoring helps motivate the fighters to actually win the round. In a close round the system - the fact that the outcome of a round will make a 2-point difference in the end - should really encourage fighters to press the action towards the end.

So, in other words - it works like this, not because it is 'fair', but because it - theoretically - leads to better fights.

Do I make any sense?

Shared rounds by many are viewed as a lazy way out.
Obviously there are some rounds where the fight could legitimately provide an even round, but often judges who score close rounds even are just failing to concentrate on the action enough.

Shpould even rounds be incorporated more fights like Vasquez Marquez and even Pac Marquez would prove highly difficult to score with a huge degree of differentiation in the scorecards.

This is an interesting one. I agree with a lot of what Dizaster said. It seems clear that judges are encouraged never to score an even round unless they absolutely have to. This is based on the idea that more fights would be scored even and there would be more draws.

This is a terrible mindset which isn’t so different from a judge being encouraged to pick one fighter over the other. The 10-10 score should be used whenever a judge feels it necessary to, otherwise judges make mistakes, forcing them to pick a round that was to close to call, like coercion. Judges are no different from referees or umpires they make mistakes sometimes and the scoring system should be set up to try to minimise error. I believe the best scoring system is the one that gives the most consistent scoring across the three judges cards ie. the closer the three judges scores are at the end of a fight the better. I think a few more drawn rounds would mean more consistent scoring and fewer of those occasional lop sided scores where one judge scores the bout 116-112 for one fighter and another 116-112 to the other, the end result may still be the same but you wouldn’t be sitting there thinking how did these 2 professional judges see the fight so different.

This for me is one of the most contentious areas in the 10 point system. I don’t think 10-10 rounds discourage fighters from trying to win the round convincingly, the round is still there to be won 10-9 until the bell rings. It might even force fighters to engage earlier in a round rather than leaving it till the last 30 seconds.

THERE ARE THREE POSSIBLE RESULTS IN A BOXING MATCH, A WIN, A LOSS AND A DRAW. Judges scores at the end of a fight often end up being scored for example 114-114, fights often end up being scored as draws, surely then 10-10 rounds should be scored a little more often than they are. It doesn’t make sense to me how judges often score fights even, say 114-114 without scoring any one of the rounds a 10-10 draw.

I hate when people score rounds even and I'll tell you why. Like said above, it is a LAZY WAY OUT. Think about it: How many times is a round DEAD even. Both fighters landed the same kind of shots, the same number of shots, showed the same ring generalship, ect? VERY VERY rarely. There are SOOOO many small, subtle details that dictate boxing and if you don't watch for and pick up on these, you have no business scoring a fight, let alone being a professional judge.

When I see someone score a round even, more often than not I think that reflects that person's inability to see the whole picture. I feel that person is just sitting there, waiting to see who lands the hardest punch, and if its a slow paced round where no one really landed a big shot they score it even. THERE IS MORE TO BOXING THAN THAT.

I feel that buhlestnoble is raising a point that needs to be addressed.

If a fight is scored a draw it should be as a result of each fighter winning an equal amount of rounds or equal segements of the fight.

A fight is not a draw in instances where judges elect to share rounds between the fighters. In such an instance a fighters best work can be completely wasted.
If one fighters wins the first minute and a half while the other is lying back but the seciond fighter storms back in the second half to win an equal portion of the round, with the intention of pacing the fight this way, this commonly used tactic could result in a lot of draw rounds.
This would completely negate many fighters techniques.

actually it can be reasonable to score a round or two even, here's why.

Fighter A is using defensive techniques, moving round the ring, slipping etc.
Fighter B is using walking forward (some would call it aggression)

Who do you score for?

Fighter A lands mostly jabs consistently throughout the round
Fighter A lands a couple of big hook, couple of rights but nothing else.

Who wins the round?

I have seen two near identical fights, one that gave the fight by a landslide to fighter A, the other fight fighter A lost.

I think there is much more personal bias in scoring than sticking to the rules which I find much more of a problem.

I see no problem with having the option to score it even, it may spur a fighter on to make the winner of the round very clear, rather than relying on putting on a quit start and strong few seconds t the end of the round so it gives the impression you're in control.

Good point Hitmandonny, fighters have built there career and tactics and technique around the current system.

A change in the system would be hard for many fighters to adapt to.

I would like to see a system where drawn rounds are scored a little more often than they currently are and perhaps this could be tested a bit like the WBC did, or are doing with the open scoring system. I cant see it happening though as its not seen as an exciting move, i think it would be a fairer system though in the long term if fighters adapted to it